From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (fed1rmmtao02.cox.net [68.230.241.37]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580EB679E6 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:52:33 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:52:31 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Wolfgang Denk Subject: Re: FT u-boot shim Message-ID: <20060429005231.GH458@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20060428232211.GE458@smtp.west.cox.net> <20060429003232.9926C353DAC@atlas.denx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20060429003232.9926C353DAC@atlas.denx.de> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 02:32:32AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <20060428232211.GE458@smtp.west.cox.net> you wrote: > > > > You wouldn't have the dtb combined in the kernel image, unless you have > > the shim. This is instead of loading a separate dtb anyhow. > > Now you got me completely confused. [Maybe I should go to bed.] > > Kumar wrote: > > > What I envision as the way one boots for something like u-boot is one > > of three options: > > 1. using an old u-boot + boot wrapper (bd_t -> wrapper -> kernel) > > 2. using a u-boot that is ft aware + dtb (boot command in u-boot > > takes kernel & dtb images, updates blob and passes to kernel) > > 3. using a u-boot that is ft aware + built in dtb. > > In my understanding, 1. is with a shim; 2. is loading a separate dtb > (probably as multi-file image), and 3. is when U-Boot provides the > dtb. Am I missing something? I'm suggesting that we make 2 easier. U-Boot needs the file mkuimage'd anyways. Why not make it easier and make adding the dtb part of that step instead of a seperate load? It's still quite easy to replace if you're testing new dtb's out. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/